The Cheapest Shot Against Obamacare, And Why Men Should Pay for Maternity

[Playinghardball]

Right wing Obamacare opponents have a rehashed talking point: the Affordable Care Act forces people to purchase coverage for things they do not need. This accusation comes from the fact that the ACA requires insurance plans to cover maternity and newborn care, and that is outrageous because men, who will never get pregnant, are being forced to pay for a policy that covers maternity care.

It’s heartening to see the sudden Republican realization that men will never get pregnant; one only wishes they could apply such factual conviction to decisions about a pregnancy and let those who do get pregnant, rather than the government, determine whether to carry those pregnancies to term.

But I digress. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies were free to charge women more for health insurance than men – essentially treating the fact of being female as a pre-existing condition – with the excuse that women could get pregnant, and thus they, and not those who couldn’t be pregnant, should have to pay for the cost of childbearing.

More here: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/10/men-do-get-pregnant-obamacare-and.html

[leftyohiolib]

1. they do that with car insurance too - they essentially treat 17y.o. male drivers as a

prexsiting condition, an accident looking for a place to happen. and if you have bad credit you get put into hi-risk insurance your pre-existing condition is that you have bad credit and therefore more likely to commit fraud. life insurance charges more if youre a smoker pre-existing condition is you may already have cancer.

[MADem]

2. The first thing every person does in this life is avail themselves of some "maternity care."

It is asinine to suggest that this is a "benefit" that is useful only for some. EVERYONE has used it at least once.

And if we want healthy people to work and pay into social security, it is in our selfish self-interest to make sure they get off to a good start with some quality maternity care. It's all about the social contract; why can't some of these dunces see that?

[leftyohiolib]

3. ive made similar remarks on the complaint about childless adults complaining about having

to support the education of kids they dont have- everyone benefits from educating kids b/c one day youll ned someone trained in nursing to nurse you, someone educated to take care of your 401 etc

[Fumesucker]

11. Oh, they took care of the 401k plans alright..

[gopiscrap]

4. then why should women pay for testicular cancer

why should men pay for breast cancer
why should woman pay for cancer of the penis?

fucking bitter clowns

[MADem]

6. The answer to that is simple, too--they had a need for balls at one point in their lives.

Without at least one ball, they wouldn't be here.

We all have used maternity care--we used it to GET here.

It's stupid to play the "I don't have that, so I don't need to pay for it" game--we've all had a use for "that" -- because "that" -- be it a testicle or a vaginal canal -- played a role in our creation. And it will play a role in the creation of the young people who will bring us our pudding when we're old, blind and toothless.

Some people can't see that a social safety net catches ALL of us, eventually.

[gopiscrap]

7. that's part of it, the other part is human decency

[MADem]

8. Yes, that "social safety net."

We need to catch our fellow humans when they fall.

[gopiscrap]

10. Exactly

[Art_from_Ark]

13. The problem is, the whole private insurance business is based on options

If this were national health insurance, and everyone was charged (essentially) the same premium, or a price based on income rather than coverage (with all necessary medical treatments covered), it would be one thing. But this is still private insurance we're talking about, and with private insurance people are used to having the choice to opt out of coverage they personally do not need.

For example, if you have homeowner's insurance in Massachusetts, does it include coverage for earthquakes? If you could save $100/year by declining earthquake insurance, would you do it? What if you were told that the extra premium for earthquake insurance would help someone in an earthquake zone if the Big One hit?

How about car insurance? If you have a klunker, would you get collision insurance for it? What if you were told that your extra premium for collision on a klunker might help an uninsured motorist who totaled a valuable car in an accident? Would you pay for underage driver liability insurance if you were the only person driving your car?

[MADem]

14. The people in Massachusetts (ironic example) got over it. They realize that a rising tide lifts all

boats. Commonwealth Care here has leveled the playing field. No one has run off, screaming and pissed. Everyone likes the system. People are healthier. They aren't afraid of their lives being ruined if they get sick.

It's WORKING.

And if you're in the system, you USED the benefit you want to opt out of at least once-if not directly, indirectly. You're paying for what you used, or what you're gonna use in one way or another. What every human on the planet used to get here, basically.

In some places, owing to weather, the insurance companies jack up your house premium even if you don't like it. And if you aren't willing to pay their rates, they tell you to stuff it.

This isn't about klunker cars or crappy houses, though--it's about people--and people aren't klunkers or buildings. Like I said, most people want the people who will be helping them out when they get older to be healthy. Only a selfish and short sighted person can't see the obvious advantages of a system where everyone takes care of one another. We're all in this together.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. Like I said, though, it's *private* insurance we're talking about

We're not talking about taxes or government services here. *Private* insurance is NOT designed for the "common good", and therein lies the problem. *Private* insurance, when purchased by an individual, is often based around that *individual's* right to pick and choose what they want in their policy, and pay accordingly. So it's quite normal, I think, for someone who is used to private insurance for everything, to want to customize their own health policy from a private insurer if they end up paying less but still get the coverage that *they* need.

[MADem]

16. ACA is based on the Massachusetts model, which works. You are just going to have to "get over it."

We couldn't get all the way there, so here we are. You're kvetching and making the perfect the enemy of the good.

It ain't cutting it with me. I've SEEN the results, and the results are superb.

You're also suggesting that fake "shit policies" that cover nothing are actually "insurance" when they aren't.

You aren't going to get your way. Deal with it.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. I don't actually have any dog in this race right now

I am just trying to explain to you why there is opposition to paying extra premiums for private health insurance for services that someone might not ever use.

As for myself, for most of my adult life I have had government-sponsored health insurance. As far as I know, I pay the same in premiums as any woman who is in my age and income group. And that does not bother me in the least. But it is *government-sponsored* health insurance which covers all necessary treatments and prescriptions, and which people in this country, Japan, accept as being for the common good.

[MADem]

18. Everyone DOES use those services, though, if not directly, indirectly.

That's the point I am making.

Everyone used "maternity care" for the 9 months preceding their birth. They used obstetrical care when they were born. They availed themselves of at least one healthy, sperm producing ball when they were created.

It's not a "them" thing. We all got here by way of fiddly bits. It's in the public interest to contribute to the health of fiddly bits, so the people who will care for us when we're old, the people who will PAY INTO the social security funds so we keep getting paid, will be healthy enough to work and contribute, and bring us our pudding cup when we are old and blind. Healthy parents have healthy babies. Healthy babies grow up into healthy adults who will wipe our aged behinds and read to us.

It's all about self-interest. It's just the aggressively selfish cannot see this, they're so blinded by the Obama-Witch Doctor-Racist shit.

I don't have a dog in this fight either--I am on TRICARE as a consequence of decades of military service. That said, I'm not stupid--I've seen the MA system work with my friends and relatives.

It's a good thing.

[trublu992]

5. Men should be universally taxed when they reach sexual maturity to fund

free birth control because its men who impregnate women. I'm so sick of women being the Hester Prynne

when it comes down to sex and pregnancy!

[leftyohiolib]

9. without ovum men could not impregnate - it takes 2

[trublu992]

12. Hello! Ovum is there regardless of fertizilation or not.

Ovum can be present for a century it's the sperm that serves as the catalyst in which pregnancy ensues and that falls on the male side

of responsibility which is why men should be taxed to fund universal free birth control.

[leftyohiolib]

19. oh ffs